If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

The Archaeological Evidence for Jesus: A Conversation with Dr. Titus Kennedy

TITUS KENNEDY
Adjunct Professor of Biblical Archaeology
Field Archaeologist
Dr. Titus Kennedy is a field archaeologist working primarily with sites and materials of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean world. He has been involved in excavations and survey projects at several archaeological sites in biblical lands, including directing and supervising multiple projects spanning the Bronze Age through the Byzantine period, and he has conducted artifact research at museums and collections around the world. His archaeological interests include biblical archaeology, the interplay between ancient documents and the archaeological record, experimental archaeology, ancient demography, and the similarities between cultures of antiquity. He is a Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute, teaches as an Adjunct Professor at Biola University, and has been a consultant, writer, and guide for history and archaeology documentaries and curricula. He publishes articles in the field of biblical archaeology and history, and recently wrote a book focusing on archaeological artifacts connected to the Bible. These credentials make him a valuable contributor to Shepherds’ Department of Biblical Archaeology, where he also serves as an Adjunct Professor and as a Field Archaeologist.


Degrees
BA Biola University
MA University of Toronto
MA University of South Africa
DLit et Phil University of South Africa

Specialties
Archaeology
Biblical Archaeology
Bronze and Iron Age Levant
New Kingdom Egypt
Roman Period Mediterranean
Artifact Analysis and Photography
Demography

Excavations
Erebuni (Arin Berd) excavations. August 2021.
Karmir Blur salvage excavations. April 2021.
Khirbet Et-Tell excavations. Director. November 2019.
Soleb Temple Inscription Documentation Project. February 2018.
El-Qanabiz excavations. Director. 2017.
Deir Dibwan Region Survey. Director. 2016.
Eccleston Pictographs Survey Project, California. 2015-2016.
Jerusalem Mt Zion excavations. Field Supervisor. 2013, 2014, 2015.

Publications
Articles
“The Land of the Shasu (Nomads) of YHWH at Soleb.” Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies volume 6 (December 2019). (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/07x6659z)
“Jonah’s Journey to Nineveh in Archaeological Context.” Bible and Spade 31:4 (2018): 93-99.
“The Burial Site of Jesus.” Archaeological Diggings. 2017.
“Jesus at the Pools of Bethesda and Siloam.” Archaeological Diggings. 2016.
“Archaeological Excavations on the Western Hill in Jerusalem.” Archaeological Diggings. 2015.
“Abraham at Ur and Haran.” Archaeological Diggings. 2015.
“Daniel in Babylon.” Archaeological Diggings. 2015.
“Papyrus Brooklyn: A List Mentioning Hebrew Servants in Egypt?” Archaeological Diggings. 2015.
“Sergius Paulus the Proconsul.” Archaeological Diggings. 2015.
15 archaeological articles in The Lexham Bible Dictionary. 2011-2015.
“The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth in Jerusalem.” Archaeological Diggings. Winter 2014.
“A Haunt of Jackals: The Conquests of Hazor in the Late Bronze Age.” Archaeological Diggings. Autumn 2014.
“A Note on an Iron Age Four-Horned Altar from Tel Dothan.” Gibson, Shimon; Kennedy, Titus; Kramer, Joel. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145/4 (2013): 306-319.
“The Trial of Jesus in Archaeology and History.” Bible and Spade. Fall 2012.
“A Greek Inscription: ‘Jesus is Present’ of the Late Roman Period at Beth Loya.” Chafer Theological Journal 14:2. 2012.
“The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone: Genuine or Hoax?” Chafer Theological Journal 14:2. 2012.
“A Canaanite Massebah or Stele at Khirbet Maqatir?” Bible and Spade. Winter 2011.
“The Date of Camel Domestication in the Ancient Near East.” Bible and Spade. Fall 2010.

Presentations
“The Excavation of El-Qanabiz near Ai,” American Schools of Oriental Research, PNW Meeting. May 2018.
“Excavating Cities of the Holy Land,” Barakat Gallery, Art in Context. February 2018.
Society for American Archaeology, Annual Meeting 2016, Orlando. “Eccleston’s Pictograph: The Great Medicine Rock.” Paul Langenwalter and Titus Kennedy. April 2016.
American Institute of Archaeology, Annual Meeting 2016, San Francisco. “The Bronze Age Temple at Khirbet et-Tell/Ai” January 2016.
American Schools of Oriental Research, Annual Meeting 2015, Atlanta. “Middle and Late Bronze Age Material in the Area of Khirbet et-Tell?” November 2015.
Colorado Christian University, President’s Symposium. “Solving Archaeological and Historical Problems in the Conquest of Canaan.” September 2015.
Colorado Christian University, President’s Symposium. “Jesus in Archaeology and History.” September 2015.
American Schools of Oriental Research, Annual Meeting 2014, San Diego. “A Demographic Analysis of Late Bronze Age Canaan.” November 2014.

Books

Unearthing the Bible (Harvest House, 2020)

Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels (Harvest House, 2022)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

But none have seen any evidence that he was a god, right? Because there is none? We agree on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

“The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.“

So...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

Paul isn’t an independent or eyewitness source.

No independent or eyewitness reports. No archeological artifacts. No primary sources.

And your high tolerance for uncertainty is your “evidence.”

Hard pass on your “evidence.” It’s neither “hard” nor “soft,” it’s just your weird oppositional defiance disorder and disregard for actual scholarship.

No, I never said that was “evidence”.

The only things we have are interpretations of secondary sources. No primary sources. No independent eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. No scholar would say otherwise.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

But none have seen any evidence that he was a god, right? Because there is none? We agree on that?

No, that’s something that is faith based. How can you prove someone else has the wrong faith? What evidence would you use, why do you care, and what else do we agree upon here is the reality for the rest of the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

But none have seen any evidence that he was a god, right? Because there is none? We agree on that?

Desperate derailment attempt #231. In any case, we don't agree on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

I think he most likely existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus.

So, you think there's some slim probability the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't exist. Got it.

(Sorry, your transparent word games can't substitute for basic logic.)

Those are not the only two possibilities.

What are the third or fourth possibilities?

This should be good....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

You have no idea, but the experts do.

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence.

And what do you have?

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty.

so, not a shred of evidence. just a skeptical personality.

That’s your answer to the scholarly evidence?

DP. I think it comes down to this. DCUM's atheists aren't scholars and my not even have college degrees. They have nothing but sheer orneriness to oppose the thousands of scholars do agree Jesus did exist.

[Anonymous]

You all carry on w/o me. Going to watch all of the good doctor’s videos. For research purposes, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

You need to review the posts on probability that somebody posted. By saying Jesus' existence is not certain, then yes, you're allowing for some probability that the mythicists are right.

Paul is an eye-witness to James and Peter. As Bart says elsewhere, if Jesus didn't exist, either James or Peter would have certainly said something to Paul. If you're going to lean on this, you need to develop a credible theory, based in your own scholarship, as to why both James and Peter made Jesus up.

Again, I'm not pushing mythicism. Just pointing out the reality of our limited evidence. Only secondary/indirect/inferred/interpreted.

Paul is not an independent source or an eyewitness for Jesus.

You're trolling or just really bad with probabilities. If you think Jesus' existence wasn't certain, then you think there's some probability he didn't exist.

Paul is an eye witness to Jesus' brother James and his leading disciple Peter. Let's hear your scholarly evidence for how James and Peter made Jesus up.

I think he most likely existed. There is a lot of supporting, indirect evidence.

Paul is neither independent or an eye witness to Jesus.

So, you think there's some slim probability the mythicists are right and Jesus didn't exist. Got it.

(Sorry, your transparent word games can't substitute for basic logic.)

Those are not the only two possibilities.

What are the third or fourth possibilities?

This should be good....

The point is we have no freaking idea. Just like most things in ancient history.

You have no idea, but the experts do.

They have interpreted secondary sources. So it seems like he most likely existed.

They don’t have primary evidence.

And what do you have?

I have a high tolerance for uncertainty.

so, not a shred of evidence. just a skeptical personality.

That’s your answer to the scholarly evidence?

DP. I think it comes down to this. DCUM's atheists aren't scholars and my not even have college degrees. They have nothing but sheer orneriness to oppose the thousands of scholars do agree Jesus did exist.

Or the ability to acknowledge that all we have are interpretations of secondary sources. No independent eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

“The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.“

So...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

Paul isn’t an independent or eyewitness source.

No independent or eyewitness reports. No archeological artifacts. No primary sources.

And your high tolerance for uncertainty is your “evidence.”

Hard pass on your “evidence.” It’s neither “hard” nor “soft,” it’s just your weird oppositional defiance disorder and disregard for actual scholarship.

No, I never said that was “evidence”.

The only things we have are interpretations of secondary sources. No primary sources. No independent eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. No scholar would say otherwise.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

That’s not how it works. The level of certainty goes up with more (any) primary sources.

[Anonymous]

And Paul wasn’t independent or an eyewitness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Paul wasn’t independent or an eyewitness.

What are you talking about?

Paul was an eyewitness to his own meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. Other sources attest to this meeting too--it happened about 15 years into Paul's mission.

And Paul's Christianity is irrelevant because scholars take the approach Bart describes, which is taking the record apart and examining all possible explanations. In this cause, there's no credible explanation for why James and Peter would make Jesus up--you certainly haven't provided a good explanation, despite your fabulous scholarly credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all carry on w/o me. Going to watch all of the good doctor’s videos. For research purposes, of course.

Can I join you? These mythicists are one-note wonders. Dr. Beefcake, on the other hand....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the evidence for his divinity again? That seems to be an unpleasant topic for some of you.

Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes.

Wrong thread.

Nope!

See the second sentence of the post you replied to. "Of course without that evidence, any other evidence of human existence is nearly meaningless except for historical purposes." That makes it incredibly relevant to the topic of this thread. But I know you'd prefer that part be pre-supposed.

Funny how you are so concerned with the evidence for one but dismissive of the need for it on the other. And by funny I mean hypocritical.

Historians, scholars, academics, and college/uni professors are concerned with truth, facts, etc. Scholars and academics aren’t hypocrites for engaging in their area of academia/scholarship and coming to the overwhelming consensus that Jesus was a historical figure.

I didn't say they were hypocrites. Please don't put words in my mouth. I fully accept the scholarship that Jesus existed.

But please don't pretend the state of his divinity is not relevant to the discussion. And for those "concerned with truth, facts, etc." which includes "Scholars and academics" as well as laymen and forum posters, we should hold that question to the same standard as his existence, right?

Unless you are saying one has a lower bar then the other.

You are not saying that, right?

So where is the scholarly academic consensus on the topic of Jesus' divinity?

It’s a completely different subject.

Oh no it is not at all. And you know it. You just want that part presupposed. And you go on and on about "scholars and academics" when it suits your agenda but suddenly silent on them when does not.

I'll make it easy for you: there isn't any evidence of Jesus' divinity, and that means he likely was just a man. A regular human. Not a god.

Scholarship and academia and professors and researchers have something called a “cold eye.” They don’t believe anything in their fields without lots of information, research, and evidence.

Every secular, atheist, or agnostic scholar in history, archaeology, the classics, etc, believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is not their job to prove or disprove the resurrection. And because they are extremely intelligent and educated, they know they don’t have the juice to do so.

Don’t put words in my mouth or tell me what I really mean or what I really want.

But none have seen any evidence that he was a god, right? Because there is none? We agree on that?

Desperate derailment attempt #231. In any case, we don't agree on that.

Then explain what you don’t agree with and what your evidence is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

audience member: I do not see evidence in archeology or history for a historical Jesus.

Bart: Yeah, well, I do. (laughs) I mean, that’s why I wrote the book. (laughs again) I have a whole book on it. So, there is alot of evidence. There is so much evidence, that, there is not, I know in the crowds you all run around with, it’s commonly thought Jesus did not exist. Let me tell you, once you get outside of your conclave, there’s nobody, I mean this is not even an issue, for scholars of Antiquity. It is not an issue for scholars of Antiquity. There is no scholar in any college, or university, in the Western world, who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity, any related field, who doubts Jesus existed.

Now, that is not evidence. Just because everybody thinks so, doesn’t make it evidence. But, if you want to know about the theory of evolution vs the theory of creationism, and every scholar in every reputable institution in the world believes in evolution, it may not be evidence, but if you have a different opinion you better come with a pretty good piece of evidence yourself.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world.

If that’s what you are going to believe, you just look foolish. You are much better off going with historical evidence, and arguing historically, rather than coming up with a theory Jesus didn’t exist.

What are “Classics?”

The Department of Classics engages in teaching and researching the civilization of the ancient Greek and Roman world in its broadest sense, from the Bronze Age Aegean to the transmission of classical literature in the Middle Ages and beyond. Our primary focus is the language, literature, art, and archaeology of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but our reach extends to all aspects of their culture as well as to related civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean world. Our field is inherently interdisciplinary, and we draw on a range of approaches in order to understand the diversity of these civilizations and to explore the varied ways in which people in later periods, including our own, have found them meaningful.

Courses:

Greek
Latin
Combined Greek and Latin
Classical Civilization
Classic Archeology

So everyone who teaches those subjects in the Western world believes in the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And you use a legal term incorrectly and try to pretend you know something.

Just watch this every time you need answers.

DP. Pulling this out from somebody's Bart Ehrman post for the atheist who keeps yammering about direct evidence. Atheist pp is like an ostrich with her head in the sand, a foolish ostrich. The author Bart is referring to who knew Jesus' brother and closest disciple is Paul. Bolding is mine.

"The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

So, I am sorry. I respect your disbelief, but I, if you want to go where the evidence goes, I think atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism. Because, frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world."

Paul isn't an independent or eyewitness source.

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.

Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

And no one here is pushing mythicism. So, irrelevant.

“The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because He is abundantly attested in early sources, that’s why. I give the details in my book. Early and INDEPENDENT sources indicate that Jesus certainly existed; one author we know about knew Jesus’ brother, and knew Jesus’ closest disciple, Peter. He’s an EYEWITNESS to both Jesus’ closest disciple and his brother.“

So...you only know how to copy and paste? Why are you on this thread?

The questions were:
Do you mean Paul? You seriously think Paul is an independent source?

If you can't answer yourself then maybe you should sit down.

You need to sit down. You keep repeating the same foolish things and you lack any scholarly credentials or work of your own to back up your assertions.

You can't rule out Paul because he's a Christian. That's ridiculous. Instead, if you have any self-respect at all, you need to produce your own scholarly work to show Peter and James made up Jesus when they talked to Paul 15 years into Paul's mission.

The man who promoted Christianity? Of course you should rule him out.

Once again, because you're having so much trouble with this.

Nobody is asking you to believe in Paul's message or Christianity.

We are asking you to provide your scholarly findings that prove James, Peter and now Paul made the whole thing up. Because that's the only other explanation, unless the atheist with third and fourth probabilities wants to chime in. Or you can sit down.

Paul isn’t an independent or eyewitness source.

No independent or eyewitness reports. No archeological artifacts. No primary sources.

And your high tolerance for uncertainty is your “evidence.”

Hard pass on your “evidence.” It’s neither “hard” nor “soft,” it’s just your weird oppositional defiance disorder and disregard for actual scholarship.

No, I never said that was “evidence”.

The only things we have are interpretations of secondary sources. No primary sources. No independent eyewitness accounts. No archeological artifacts. No scholar would say otherwise.

Paul knowing Peter and James IS a primary source. Multiple sources besides Paul attest to this.

The onus is on you to prove it DIDN'T happen. And then to explain why James and Peter MADE UP Jesus.

We'll wait....

That’s not how it works. The level of certainty goes up with more (any) primary sources.

Nope. We have a great primary source in the fact of Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James and his disciple Peter. Other sources also attest to this meeting. You're unable to disprove the sources or to explain why Paul, Jesus and James made Jesus up.

Case closed. As Bart says, Paul's meeting with Peter and James is "pretty much the death knell for mythicism, as some of them will agree."

[Anonymous]

TITUS KENNEDY

Degrees
BA Biola University

So he's an evangelical christian? And he believes that Jesus was real? Shocker.